What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
If you send a letter through the mail to X that says "I want to kill Y," what happens?

If you send a letter through the mail that says "I want to kill you," what happens?

If you put a note on a public bulletin board that says "I want to kill X," what happens?

I don't know the answer to any of these things, but I think the Facebook threat is closer and closer to each.
Click to expand...
I'm of a view that #2 is the worst of all, because it's a threat made to that person about that person.

I think this is where the protective/harassment/restraining orders come into play. Someone posts something that sounds threatening or harassing, or someone calls you, or sends you a letter, get the order. Then, if they do it again, they've committed a legitimate crime. They have basically committed contempt of court. Send them to jail.

I'm sure the criminal defense lawyers here can shed better light on it, but I have a lot of trouble prosecuting someone for putting up a sign on a public message board that basically says "I wish X were dead" or "I should have killed X when I had the chance" or similar such nonsense.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

#2 is the worst by far. It is a direct threat.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

SJHovey said:
I have a lot of trouble prosecuting someone for putting up a sign on a public message board that basically says "I wish X were dead" or "I should have killed X when I had the chance" or similar such nonsense.
Click to expand...

Agreed. "I wish..." can't be criminal; it's a thought.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Another 9 - 0 reprimand to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals....

In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, employees filed a putative class-action suit against a company that ships for Amazon.com , claiming workers were entitled to back pay for time waiting to go through a metal detector to and from work.

The 1947 Portal to Portal Act drew clear boundaries around activities that count as part of the official workday for which employees should be paid. Congress wrote the law to address an avalanche of some 1,500 lawsuits filed by unions and employees after the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act passed. Activities had to be “integral and indispensable” to getting the job done.

The Ninth Circuit “erred by focusing on whether an employer required a particular activity,” Justice Thomas wrote for the Court, when the “test is tied to the productive work that the employee is employed to perform.” Under the Court’s precedents, butchers sharpening their knives can count, for instance, but not poultry-plant workers waiting to put on protective gear.

Joined by Justice Elena Kagan , Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a concurrence that the case was not about worker safety. “As our precedents make clear, the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 is primarily concerned with defining the beginning and end of the workday.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Sotomayor has a solo dissent on Heien v. North Carolina, where the majority holds that a reasonable mistake of law by an officer is not grounds for tossing evidence.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

I'm with Sotomayor on this one. This is liable to prompt a lot of "reasonable" "mistakes".
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Based on the outline of the case, I think it's the correct decision for this particular stop, but setting precedent like that definitely opens up a can of worms going forward.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Why are the USCHO conservative posters always silent when a ruling like this gets handed down?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
Why are the USCHO conservative posters always silent when a ruling like this gets handed down?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the North Carolina criminal case?

I suspect most people who read or hear about that case have this reaction. The cops stopped a guy and discovered he had cocaine in his car. He was convicted of having the cocaine. What's the problem?

The general public may understand the need for probable cause to stop someone, or search their car. But in this case the guy's taillight was out. Arcane legal arguments about whether one light or both had to be out, and "reasonable mistakes" of law or fact go right past most of the public, liberal or conservative.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

SJHovey said:
Are you talking about the North Carolina criminal case?

I suspect most people who read or hear about that case have this reaction. The cops stopped a guy and discovered he had cocaine in his car. He was convicted of having the cocaine. What's the problem?

The general public may understand the need for probable cause to stop someone, or search their car. But in this case the guy's taillight was out. Arcane legal arguments about whether one light or both had to be out, and "reasonable mistakes" of law or fact go right past most of the public, liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...


But if you spend your life constantly concerned about the overly repressive State, isn't this the first step towards black helicopters and gulags?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

SJHovey said:
Are you talking about the North Carolina criminal case?

I suspect most people who read or hear about that case have this reaction. The cops stopped a guy and discovered he had cocaine in his car. He was convicted of having the cocaine. What's the problem?

The general public may understand the need for probable cause to stop someone, or search their car. But in this case the guy's taillight was out. Arcane legal arguments about whether one light or both had to be out, and "reasonable mistakes" of law or fact go right past most of the public, liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...

While true, in Minnesota a broken tail light (or any basic moving violation like speeding) is not enough to allow a search of the vehicle or a person. Problem is 99% of the people on the road dont know that and consent thinking they have to.

My late cousin was a pretty well known attorney in Minnesota and he would give us the same advice every time the subject came up: "If they ask you say no." Had a law professor who said the same thing.

edit: Not commenting on this case just making a general point.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
But if you spend your life constantly concerned about the overly repressive State, isn't this the first step towards black helicopters and gulags?
Click to expand...
Smart conservatives recognize the need to let the cops repress a white guy now and again.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FreshFish said:
Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).
Click to expand...

What do you consider public assistance? Social Security? Medicare? Military pensions? Government salary? Corporate welfare?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FreshFish said:
Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).
Click to expand...
You're so full of **** your eyes must be brown.
 
FreshFish said:
Genuine curiosity:

Do recipients of public assistance money have a constitutional right to spend that money on drugs and alcohol? or can states legally mandate that they have to pass a drug test first to continue to receive the money?

(I'm not asking about whether it is good policy or not, I'm sure the know-it-alls already have that answer, I'm merely asking if it is legal or not).
Click to expand...
Since you can't use traditional welfare to buy either of those things, you're really asking if they should be allowed to spend their own money on them now that taxpayers are providing them with food.

They have the constitutional right to spend their own money in a legal manner as they see fit, just as you or I do. They also have a fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Doesn't matter that it's the Dept. of health and human services rather than a cop; a government actor is still a government actor.

So no, you don't get to take away Billy Bob's 21st Amendment rights simply because he's getting food stamps.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I am sure Fishy would have no such question about using public assistance to buy guns. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top